DEFENDING HOUSING DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS: WHAT CONDOMINIUM BOARDS NEED TO KNOW
Condominium trustees and property managers in Massachusetts face growing exposure to housing discrimination complaints under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and state anti-discrimination laws. While many of these complaints are ultimately dismissed, those that move forward before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) or in court can be costly and time-consuming to defend.
The key to minimizing risk is not only responding properly to accommodation and modification requests but also managing the process intelligently from the first contact through any potential litigation.
Act Immediately and Involve Counsel Early
Common condo challenges involve rules like ‘no pets,’ limited parking, or architectural guidelines. Associations must engage in an interactive process for disability requests and ensure rules are enforced consistently. Examples include denying ramps or accessible parking for disabled residents, rejecting emotional support animals, restricting children’s use of common areas, or retaliating after a resident files an MCAD complaint.
The moment a board receives a discrimination complaint or a request for an accommodation, its first call should be to the association’s attorney. Early legal involvement allows the board to preserve evidence, manage communications, and avoid statements that could later be misinterpreted as discriminatory or retaliatory.
Counsel will also need to collect every document and communication related to the request — emails, texts, meeting notes, and even informal messages. These records become critical if the case proceeds, both to establish a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the board’s decision and to show consistent handling of similar requests.
Prepare a Strong Position Statement
In Massachusetts, FHA complaints are first filed with the MCAD, and the association has just 21 days to respond with a written “position statement.” This document is the association’s first and sometimes only opportunity to persuade the agency to dismiss the claim before it becomes a full-blown case.
The position statement must address each allegation with supporting documents and evidence showing that the board’s actions were neutral and compliant with the law. It’s a labor-intensive process, but Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance typically covers legal fees associated with such claims — another reason to notify your insurer as soon as possible.
Consider the Forum Carefully
At certain points in the process, Boards can decide to keep the matter at the MCAD or “remove” it to court. Each option has tradeoffs. The MCAD process can be quicker and less expensive but tends to favor complainants. Court proceedings offer broader discovery tools and impartial juries but can take longer and cost more.
In many cases, mediation at the MCAD provides a useful opportunity to resolve disputes before litigation escalates. Boards should consult with counsel to evaluate the best strategic path based on the facts and tone of the complaint.
Avoid Common Pitfalls
Several recurring mistakes make defending these cases harder:
Failing to consult counsel early. Offhand comments or emails can become evidence of bias.
Ignoring documentation. Every step — from receipt of a request to the final board vote — should be recorded.
Engaging informally with complainants. Board members should not discuss requests in hallways or over email threads. Refer all communications through formal channels.
Refusing to negotiate. Even when the board feels justified, litigation costs often exceed the expense of granting a reasonable accommodation.
Skipping fair housing training. Regular training for trustees and managers both reduces risk and demonstrates good faith if litigation arises.
Manage the “Quiet Period”
During the MCAD process, there are often long stretches of time (months) where there is little activity or attention to the claims at the MCAD. Often after filing a position statement, a Board will not hear from the MCAD for several months. It is common for Complainants to interpret ordinary actions by the Board as retaliation. During this period, trustees should minimize direct contact with the complainant and channel all communications through legal counsel or the property manager to avoid giving Complainants the opportunity to cry retaliation.
Demonstrate Even-Handedness
Ultimately, defending a fair housing claim often comes down to demonstrating consistent treatment. Boards must apply rules uniformly and avoid any appearance of favoritism — even for well-liked residents. Courts and agencies will look closely at how similar requests have been handled in the past to determine whether a denial was truly discriminatory.
Massachusetts condominium boards can significantly improve their chances of defeating discrimination claims by acting promptly, documenting thoroughly, and engaging counsel early. Treat all residents consistently, train regularly, and communicate carefully. While defeating a fair housing claim is never easy, an informed and disciplined approach gives boards their best chance to prevail — and to avoid finding themselves in litigation in the first place.
If you have any questions on defending housing discrimination claims, please contact Seth Barnett or our MEEB Attorneys at law@meeb.com.